Americans Abandoning Free Speech Better Brace for the Consequences

None but keep in mind the radical right MUST be the victim and everyone knows it's the scary 'libs' that do it to them, they are the snowflakes.

 

You mean a 'reputable place' is a place where censorship is practiced?

 

Get your dictionary out and look all around you.

 

Hate Speech Laws.

 

Very true which is why the fairness doctrine was an abomination which was rightfully repealed.

These big tech companies can allow anyone or no one to use their platfoerm as they see fit. But of course they need to admit that this is what they do. When they claim to be a platform for all opinions and views they need to be penalized for fraud.

It is also more than merely big tech suppressing views they do not like. In general many Americans, especially on the left, are abandoning the principle of free speech. It is more than just a constitutional amendment. Cancel culture needs to stop and progressives need to grow the **** up.

 

had the right not pushed for and gotten the disastrous Citizens united ruling the 'big corporations' would be able to buy Congress the way they can now.
Blame the QOP for that, they and the members own it.

 

"big tech" the new right wing boogy man.

 

nope, it's a virtual private square, private property

be like someone coming inside you're home and shouting obscenities at everyone, so you make them leave - and then screaming you are against free speech

 

So none is what you are saying, got it.

 

Correct. Businesses are free to censor whatever they like. Government is banned from doing it by the first amendment. Nobody is required to use these sites. they aren't necessary for anything. Using them is acceptance of how they operate. Nothing fascist about it. Throwing inappropriate words around doesn't make it so.

 

Without that law how would new competitors even have a chance of building a business?

 

Exactly! Having corporations do the government's dirty work is the Modern American Way. Just as AT&Treason and other telecoms did the dirty work for the government in intercepting electronic communications of its customers for the Bush administration, today's 'social media' platforms do the government's dirty work in keeping the truth at bay and the government's propaganda thriving.

 

That is the dilemma.

 

Then instead of pushing for the overturn of that law perhaps it makes sense to push for better communication about the dangers that social media represents. It is the public that has made social media successful. I think only the public can reverse that. That is the free market way instead of the government way.

 

Quite true. But the current problem (and dilemma) stems not from the public and all of their foibles, but from the owners of the media sites becoming a propaganda arm and a political advocate of a political party.

 

How a requirement that broadcast companies who use publicly owned airwaves be obliged to provide speakers on both sides of an issue to present their views became an abomination is something only right wingers would assert.

 

Trump was the head of the government while he was tweeting lie after lie.

 

But you probably applauded when those same owners banned radical Muslim groups from using their platforms to
recruit terrorists (I did). So those owners are put in a bit of a bind - at what point are they going to be yelled at for being
too lax with the use of their responsibility to the public vs. too strict? Do they take a threat of physical violence to just
be rhetoric, or is it an actual threat.

It's easy to back-seat drive, but it's a real conundrum for the management of these platforms. So do they error on the side of
caution, or do they try to explain themselves after a violent attack? You understand this, right?

 

But they have the right to advocate for a political party even if it hurts their business and I think it does hurt them. As they say, don't like it, don't use it.

 

What hypocrisy.

Force one to provide a platform but not others. If it is acceptable for yourtube and twitter to deny access to their platform based on private property then the precise same standard applies to the owner of a radio transmitter.

 

Yes, I do, and agree. But censoring violence producing speech is not at all the same as propagandizing and advocating for a political party unless you water down the definition of inciting violence to make it utterly meaningless -- as the House recently did. Did any Democrat get banned for supporting BLM and Antifa riots? Did Harris get banned for supporting the rioters on social media by soliciting bail money? The answer to both (and countless other examples) is NO.

 

The only requirement to get a license to use the public airways is to operate in the "public interest." It was congress trying to tinker with what that means for their own political interest that created the equal access doctrine. Do you think forcing conservative talk radio to spend half their broadcast time airing liberal viewpoints -- and losing 90% of their audience in the process -- is not an abomination?

 

See, threats is not covered under free speech.
It falls along the lines of yelling fire in a crowded theater. It incites violence. That sort of free speech doesn't need to adhered to by private corporations in business to cater to customers.

 

Not 1 single person in this world has to have any of those platforms. NO ONE.
Don't like the platform, there are others. Or an entirely different form of media.

But many 100 yrs ago, needed oil and other commodities to live.

 

I think that is the problem for the OP. The OP and others who think like that, want gov't to regulate private industries to force them into doing what they want.
They are against free speech and the right to openly conduct business in the USA.